Are they saying that? I think they're saying Cisco should tell people when they have a huge security problem so they'll, I dunno... download the freakin patch.
This is not to say that flaws should not be revealed for the good of all, but speaking in generalities here, broadcasting everything as loudly and widely as possible to the public isn't necessarily the best way to address issues. Nor is hiding things in obscurity. But there is a scale here, and it's NOT black and white.
You're sort of straw-manning here. The problem isn't that Cisco didn't fix the vulnerability in time, the problem is that they didn't tell anyone it was a critical update. That's a far cry from open-sourcing their code or personally explaining how the vulnerability works.
Yours? Wait, I'm sorry, did you just effectively say "It's popular with the right people" in its defense?
There's a difference between righteous indignation and masturbatory self-pity. There's a difference between poetic statement and adolescent indulgence. The only thing accomplished by stereotyping authority in a serious piece of writing is a dumbing down of the discourse.
No. I understand that other peoples' indifference is a fact of life. It's self-indulgent the same way that a lot of "outcast" teen blogs are self-indulgent... plenty of moaning about how terrible it is, how unfair it is, how they've done nothing wrong. Sure, lots of people feel this way. But you know what? That's fucking life. Be thankful you were born with a brain worthy of society's contempt. Moaning about it solves nothing. Mentor's Manifesto is self-indulgent in the self-pity circle-jerking it inspires.
But if his pretentious drivel strokes your ego and makes you feel righteous in your victimization, by all means, stay in the circle.
Yeah, I had seen it. I was surprised someone was actually able to cite it (although in his version it was "medical studies") without choking on the irony.
It's reminiscent of those studies that show saccharine is a carcinogen even though the amounts fed to their lab rats scaled up to a human size are several orders of magnitude beyond what a normal human would consume.
Sorry, but you can't invoke a completely unrelated study to discredit this one. The study is looking for a possible mechanism for damage. It found one. No claims have been made that mobiles destroy your eyes and you should stop using them immediately or anything of the sort.
Maybe 1.1Ghz for 22 hours invokes some magical phenomenon that we have no clue about. We just don't know. But it's certainly reasonable for them to say, "Check it out, cell phones might damage eyes" given their findings.
Hello. You are representative of a subset of Slashdot users I would like to address this post to.
In addition, they did this experiment on lenses taken from dead cows. Of course they're not going to heal, they're from dead animals!
Let me start by saying that the article itself says the lenses were incubated in an organ culture. But that's somewhat beside the point. The point is this: You assumed that the study contained an incredibly obvious oversight. When you made that assumption, you clearly failed to ask yourself... "Are they really that stupid?"
Unfortunately, sometimes the answer to that question is "Yep". But in general, when some eager beaver such as yourself gets carried away with how supremely stupid someone (presumably) much more qualified than their humble self did, they can overlook simple things (such as the actual article).
At any rate, your offhand invocation of the "1/3 of all studies" line is complete fluff, and makes your relevant biases crystal clear. May your positive moderators burn in metamod hell.
It's about verbal style, which is why I enjoy Frontalot a lot more than most of the nerdcore "reference-droppers". I have yet to hear anything resembling cleverness or humor from mainstream rap (for that matter, talent is pretty damn scarce in that domain too). It's all about being tongue-in-cheek without crossing over into annoying pretension (sorry Chris).
Nonetheless, all it would have taken would have been a bit of hard work; but that hard work was not forthcoming. Conclusion, Windows programmers can't be bothered.
GP points out that memory leaks aren't exactly a smoking gun when it comes to web surfing. No one is going to know what web application is leaking memory, unless it's one they use almost exclusively.
Indeed. Microsoft isn't threatened by BSD-style licenses, because they can just swallow any threats licensed that way whole and Microsoftize them. Their license is a blatant "fuck you" to the GPL, considering they're utilizing probably the most infamous open-source incompatibility.
You're right, there isn't a "magical" pool of wealth, but practically speaking, there is just one pool of money
I didn't communicate that very clearly through my sarcasm. What I meant to say is, wealth is resources, resources are limited. Money doesn't come out of nowhere.
You and I haven't really traded much of anything, but the entire pool of money is slowly transferring to the government. This is why over-taxation kills commerce.
Well, sorry, but the government just doesn't burn all the money they take in taxes. It's not like they tax us to spite us. That money is spent. Do you know where money goes when it's spent? Back into the economy. Funding things that are impractical in the private sector, and government itself. Is there excess? Of course, but that's a completely separate argument.
Don't you see how unfair all this is? How can you not be furious that we're taxed to the teeth at every turn? How can you possibly defend a system that taxes people who want to take the last little scraps what the government allowed them to keep, and give them to their kids?
The (partially hypothetical) system I'm defending does not tax "last scraps". It helps insure that people with no scraps have something at all.
Now, if I leave it to my kids, it is useless to them unless they spend it. And they cannot spend it without paying tax.
$1 million useless unless you spend it? I don't know where you got your financial advice, but I wouldn't be a big hurry to spend my million. I'd probably let it generate money for me. That's not spending it, and that's very useful. It's also useful in illustrating the slippery slope inherent in unchecked capitalism.
Greed and resentment, that's why. And I'm not talking specifically about you, I'm referring to society in general, the left-wing crybabies who hate to see people getting things that they can't have. They resent that some people get to inherit money just because their parents happened to be smart investors or diligent planners.
All you're doing now is moving your personal attacks from me to others who feel the same as I do. This is unwarranted, unrelated, and pointless. How do you know what motivates them? Please, try to stick the actual argument rather than just insulting your opponents.
I'm now going to put two of your quotes side by side: Don't you see how unfair all this is? Life isn't always fair, and it shouldn't be our goal to make it a completely level playing field at all costs.
Oops. And, why shouldn't we? You seem to be very selective about what should be "fair" and what shouldn't be.
We shouldn't drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator, just to make everything "fair."
I'm not talking about dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator, abolishing capitalism, or redistributing all wealth here. I'm talking about lowering the ceiling until the floor is livable. People are more important than owning seven boats.
Strawman argument. Some countries have all those freedoms. They are not mutually exclusive.
Nope, you missed the point. You asked if it was still a free country. I pointed out that freedom is a spectrum. If you want an absolute answer to your question, no country is a free country. If you don't, then it's a pointless thing to bring up, unless you qualify what kind of freedom you're talking about.
Why did you add "at the expense of others?" It's at nobody's expense. They just lucked out or worked hard or were very smart. At whose "expense" is Bill Gates so super-rich? Who out there is suffering and starving in the streets because Bill is so rich? Who did Bill rob at gunpoint to accumulate all that wealth?
It's a difference in potential impact, not specifically what he did to get his wealth (although that's another argument altogether... for the sake of this one, let's assume all of MS's business practices have
Precisely. The only *objectively fair* systems that don't depend "on how many poor and rich people there are" are ones that involve either flat taxation rates or consumption taxes.
I don't think you can call that objectively fair, because you're making an assumption about the value of money.
Progressive taxation rates should be a sliding scale up to a maximum amount at a certain income level, not "tax brackets".
Yes, tax brackets are unbelievably stupid. I think I'd prefer a logarithmic scale of returns to a maximum cutoff though.
Well, uhh, actually, I got the news straight from the KDE site, and promptly read Stallman's original, so no. I never followed up after the KDE team's response, because I wasn't that interested at that point.
I disagree with the statement that "communism is an economic method, not a governing method". It is both, simply because the former cannot exist without the latter. How can the commune make decisions about the allocation of resources across industry boundaries without a governing body?
You're right. I was basically drawing an arbitrary line that can't really be exact with communism.
You're right when you say that the structure of this government can vary, but I have to ask: how many times has communism not taken the form of a dictatorship?
Well, I think the GP has legitimately pointed out some communism that seems to be working fine.
It gets back to the original criticism: just because communism could, in theory, not be authoritarian, can it ever not be authoritarian in practice?
There have also been plenty of capitalist systems that degenerated into fascism. I'm going to out on a limb here and assume that there aren't really enough communist data points to draw meaningful conclusions, other than a vague suspicion that communism has some tie to authoritarianism.
How would the rise of authoritarianism be prevented?
This is a valid question for any system of government and/or allocation. If you asked me how to prevent the rise of fascism in a capitalist society (and keep it a capitalist society), I'm not sure how I'd respond, other than to say "We're not quite there yet!"
The problem I had with the GP is that he tried to extrapolate from the fact that there were communally owned and operated farms and factories in Argentina that communism as a system was a good thing.
Well, what they're doing seems to be working, and it seems to be communism, so I'd say this is a fair extrapolation.
But the truth is, that while these efforts may be fine in their limited aspects, they do not address macro-scale issues.
No, they don't. Which simply means it's not an example of The One True Communist Plan. I've yet to see an example of real capitalism properly addressing micro-scale issues; that doesn't mean it can't, and that doesn't invalidate capitalism's very real and noteworthy accomplishments.
Slashdot Mirror
Are they saying that? I think they're saying Cisco should tell people when they have a huge security problem so they'll, I dunno... download the freakin patch.
This is not to say that flaws should not be revealed for the good of all, but speaking in generalities here, broadcasting everything as loudly and widely as possible to the public isn't necessarily the best way to address issues. Nor is hiding things in obscurity. But there is a scale here, and it's NOT black and white.
You're sort of straw-manning here. The problem isn't that Cisco didn't fix the vulnerability in time, the problem is that they didn't tell anyone it was a critical update. That's a far cry from open-sourcing their code or personally explaining how the vulnerability works.
Yours? Wait, I'm sorry, did you just effectively say "It's popular with the right people" in its defense?
There's a difference between righteous indignation and masturbatory self-pity. There's a difference between poetic statement and adolescent indulgence. The only thing accomplished by stereotyping authority in a serious piece of writing is a dumbing down of the discourse.
No. I understand that other peoples' indifference is a fact of life. It's self-indulgent the same way that a lot of "outcast" teen blogs are self-indulgent... plenty of moaning about how terrible it is, how unfair it is, how they've done nothing wrong. Sure, lots of people feel this way. But you know what? That's fucking life. Be thankful you were born with a brain worthy of society's contempt. Moaning about it solves nothing. Mentor's Manifesto is self-indulgent in the self-pity circle-jerking it inspires.
But if his pretentious drivel strokes your ego and makes you feel righteous in your victimization, by all means, stay in the circle.
Props to the Coward, for remixing the manifesto in a ridiculous way.
Shits to the actual manifesto, for being the most self-indulgent piece of writing ever created.
And shits to Dossy, who thinks not having read some wanker's tripe is the True Mark of the Lame. Shame on you, Dossy.
Yeah, I had seen it. I was surprised someone was actually able to cite it (although in his version it was "medical studies") without choking on the irony.
It's reminiscent of those studies that show saccharine is a carcinogen even though the amounts fed to their lab rats scaled up to a human size are several orders of magnitude beyond what a normal human would consume.
Sorry, but you can't invoke a completely unrelated study to discredit this one. The study is looking for a possible mechanism for damage. It found one. No claims have been made that mobiles destroy your eyes and you should stop using them immediately or anything of the sort.
Maybe 1.1Ghz for 22 hours invokes some magical phenomenon that we have no clue about. We just don't know. But it's certainly reasonable for them to say, "Check it out, cell phones might damage eyes" given their findings.
The mistaken notion that their money benefits the artist.
Hello. You are representative of a subset of Slashdot users I would like to address this post to.
In addition, they did this experiment on lenses taken from dead cows. Of course they're not going to heal, they're from dead animals!
Let me start by saying that the article itself says the lenses were incubated in an organ culture. But that's somewhat beside the point. The point is this: You assumed that the study contained an incredibly obvious oversight. When you made that assumption, you clearly failed to ask yourself... "Are they really that stupid?"
Unfortunately, sometimes the answer to that question is "Yep". But in general, when some eager beaver such as yourself gets carried away with how supremely stupid someone (presumably) much more qualified than their humble self did, they can overlook simple things (such as the actual article).
At any rate, your offhand invocation of the "1/3 of all studies" line is complete fluff, and makes your relevant biases crystal clear. May your positive moderators burn in metamod hell.
Only if the loss of privacy is one-way.
It's about verbal style, which is why I enjoy Frontalot a lot more than most of the nerdcore "reference-droppers". I have yet to hear anything resembling cleverness or humor from mainstream rap (for that matter, talent is pretty damn scarce in that domain too). It's all about being tongue-in-cheek without crossing over into annoying pretension (sorry Chris).
I basically abhor rap, but Frontalot is undeniable.
Anyway, the parent left out the two tracks that should not be overlooked:
Indier Than Thou
Braggadocio
Also, for those of us that aren't fond of Bush, Special Delivery
Wow. IWIHMP. That was about the most concise summary of America's bullshit in the middle east I've read. +1 from a disgruntled American.
the wack jobs that twist them into wanting to kill people in the first place.
"The U.S. government" is less typing.
Nonetheless, all it would have taken would have been a bit of hard work; but that hard work was not forthcoming. Conclusion, Windows programmers can't be bothered.
Ahem
GP points out that memory leaks aren't exactly a smoking gun when it comes to web surfing. No one is going to know what web application is leaking memory, unless it's one they use almost exclusively.
Indeed. Microsoft isn't threatened by BSD-style licenses, because they can just swallow any threats licensed that way whole and Microsoftize them. Their license is a blatant "fuck you" to the GPL, considering they're utilizing probably the most infamous open-source incompatibility.
Hello; "XXX" is a euphemism. Just use ".sex" and there isn't any confusion.
Unless you don't speak English, of course. Given that we don't have language-specific namespaces for these things, XXX is a pretty reasonable choice.
You're right, there isn't a "magical" pool of wealth, but practically speaking, there is just one pool of money
I didn't communicate that very clearly through my sarcasm. What I meant to say is, wealth is resources, resources are limited. Money doesn't come out of nowhere.
You and I haven't really traded much of anything, but the entire pool of money is slowly transferring to the government. This is why over-taxation kills commerce.
Well, sorry, but the government just doesn't burn all the money they take in taxes. It's not like they tax us to spite us. That money is spent. Do you know where money goes when it's spent? Back into the economy. Funding things that are impractical in the private sector, and government itself. Is there excess? Of course, but that's a completely separate argument.
Don't you see how unfair all this is? How can you not be furious that we're taxed to the teeth at every turn? How can you possibly defend a system that taxes people who want to take the last little scraps what the government allowed them to keep, and give them to their kids?
The (partially hypothetical) system I'm defending does not tax "last scraps". It helps insure that people with no scraps have something at all.
Now, if I leave it to my kids, it is useless to them unless they spend it. And they cannot spend it without paying tax.
$1 million useless unless you spend it? I don't know where you got your financial advice, but I wouldn't be a big hurry to spend my million. I'd probably let it generate money for me. That's not spending it, and that's very useful. It's also useful in illustrating the slippery slope inherent in unchecked capitalism.
Greed and resentment, that's why. And I'm not talking specifically about you, I'm referring to society in general, the left-wing crybabies who hate to see people getting things that they can't have. They resent that some people get to inherit money just because their parents happened to be smart investors or diligent planners.
All you're doing now is moving your personal attacks from me to others who feel the same as I do. This is unwarranted, unrelated, and pointless. How do you know what motivates them? Please, try to stick the actual argument rather than just insulting your opponents.
I'm now going to put two of your quotes side by side:
Don't you see how unfair all this is?
Life isn't always fair, and it shouldn't be our goal to make it a completely level playing field at all costs.
Oops. And, why shouldn't we? You seem to be very selective about what should be "fair" and what shouldn't be.
We shouldn't drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator, just to make everything "fair."
I'm not talking about dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator, abolishing capitalism, or redistributing all wealth here. I'm talking about lowering the ceiling until the floor is livable. People are more important than owning seven boats.
Strawman argument. Some countries have all those freedoms. They are not mutually exclusive.
Nope, you missed the point. You asked if it was still a free country. I pointed out that freedom is a spectrum. If you want an absolute answer to your question, no country is a free country. If you don't, then it's a pointless thing to bring up, unless you qualify what kind of freedom you're talking about.
Why did you add "at the expense of others?" It's at nobody's expense. They just lucked out or worked hard or were very smart. At whose "expense" is Bill Gates so super-rich? Who out there is suffering and starving in the streets because Bill is so rich? Who did Bill rob at gunpoint to accumulate all that wealth?
It's a difference in potential impact, not specifically what he did to get his wealth (although that's another argument altogether... for the sake of this one, let's assume all of MS's business practices have
Precisely. The only *objectively fair* systems that don't depend "on how many poor and rich people there are" are ones that involve either flat taxation rates or consumption taxes.
I don't think you can call that objectively fair, because you're making an assumption about the value of money.
Progressive taxation rates should be a sliding scale up to a maximum amount at a certain income level, not "tax brackets".
Yes, tax brackets are unbelievably stupid. I think I'd prefer a logarithmic scale of returns to a maximum cutoff though.
Well, uhh, actually, I got the news straight from the KDE site, and promptly read Stallman's original, so no. I never followed up after the KDE team's response, because I wasn't that interested at that point.
As if your left-leaning rhetoric and inflammatory sig weren't enough, you used the phrase "no-the-fuck idea". You fucking rule.
I disagree with the statement that "communism is an economic method, not a governing method". It is both, simply because the former cannot exist without the latter. How can the commune make decisions about the allocation of resources across industry boundaries without a governing body?
You're right. I was basically drawing an arbitrary line that can't really be exact with communism.
You're right when you say that the structure of this government can vary, but I have to ask: how many times has communism not taken the form of a dictatorship?
Well, I think the GP has legitimately pointed out some communism that seems to be working fine.
It gets back to the original criticism: just because communism could, in theory, not be authoritarian, can it ever not be authoritarian in practice?
There have also been plenty of capitalist systems that degenerated into fascism. I'm going to out on a limb here and assume that there aren't really enough communist data points to draw meaningful conclusions, other than a vague suspicion that communism has some tie to authoritarianism.
How would the rise of authoritarianism be prevented?
This is a valid question for any system of government and/or allocation. If you asked me how to prevent the rise of fascism in a capitalist society (and keep it a capitalist society), I'm not sure how I'd respond, other than to say "We're not quite there yet!"
The problem I had with the GP is that he tried to extrapolate from the fact that there were communally owned and operated farms and factories in Argentina that communism as a system was a good thing.
Well, what they're doing seems to be working, and it seems to be communism, so I'd say this is a fair extrapolation.
But the truth is, that while these efforts may be fine in their limited aspects, they do not address macro-scale issues.
No, they don't. Which simply means it's not an example of The One True Communist Plan. I've yet to see an example of real capitalism properly addressing micro-scale issues; that doesn't mean it can't, and that doesn't invalidate capitalism's very real and noteworthy accomplishments.
So? GCC from twenty years ago was a huge contribution.
lol, indeed